Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Country
United States of America (USA)
Inscribed in
1983
Criteria
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
The conservation outlook for this site has been assessed as "good with some concerns" in the latest assessment cycle. Explore the Conservation Outlook Assessment for the site below. You have the option to access the summary, or the detailed assessment.
Stretching over more than 200,000 ha, this exceptionally beautiful park is home to more than 3,500 plant species, including almost as many trees (130 natural species) as in all of Europe. Many endangered animal species are also found there, including what is probably the greatest variety of salamanders in the world. Since the park is relatively untouched, it gives an idea of temperate flora before the influence of humankind. © UNESCO
Summary
2025 Conservation Outlook
Finalised on
11 Oct 2025
Good with some concerns
Current state and trend of VALUES
Low Concern
Overall THREATS
Overall PROTECTION and MANAGEMENT
Full assessment
Description of values
Exceptional natural beauty
Criterion
(vii)
The site is of exceptional natural beauty with scenic vistas of characteristic mist-shrouded (“smoky”) mountains, vast stretches of virgin timber, and clear running streams (World Heritage Committee, 2018). It is one of the most pristine natural areas in the eastern U.S., offering park visitors breathtaking mountain scenery, including panoramic views of misty peaks, clear flowing mountain streams, and mature hardwood forests stretching to the horizon. The Park encompasses 2072 sq km (800 sq miles) of pristine natural areas with peaks that range from elevations of 267 m (875 ft) to 2025 m (6643 ft), including 16 peaks over 1828 m (6000 ft) in elevation.
Outstanding example of the diverse Arcto-Tertiary geoflora era
Criterion
(viii)
Great Smoky Mountains National Park is of world importance as the outstanding example of the diverse Arcto-Tertiary geoflora era, providing an indication of what the late Pleistocene flora looked like before recent human impacts (World Heritage Committee, 2018). The Great Smoky Mountains are believed to be 200-300 million years old making them among the oldest mountains in the world. During the last (Pleistocene) ice age, about 10,000 years ago, the glaciers that scoured much of North America allowed for the migration of species into the Smoky Mountains and because of the unique northeast to southwest orientation of the mountains the glaciers did not invade the Smoky Mountains. This created not only unique mountain features, but also a vast diversity of flora and fauna (IUCN, 1982).
Significant example of continuing biological evolution
Criterion
(ix)
Great Smoky Mountains National Park is one of the largest remaining remnants of the diverse Arcto-Tertiary geoflora era in the world, providing a good indication of the appearance of late Pleistocene flora. 30% of the forested landscape of the park is ancient old growth forest. The Park is large enough to be a significant example of continuing biological evolution of this natural system and is of the one of the most ecologically rich and diverse temperate zone protected areas in the world (World Heritage Committee, 2018).
Diversity of flora
Criterion
(x)
An average of 85” of rainfall annually, the variations in elevation, temperature, and geology provide ideal habitat for over 1300 native vascular plant species, including 105 native tree species, plus nearly 500 species of non-vascular plants; a level of floristic diversity that rivals or exceeds other temperate zone protected areas of similar size. In addition, the park has a vast number of non-flowering plants, including 450 bryophytes-mosses, liverworts, and a few hornworts. Non-flowering species also include some 50 ferns and fern allies and at least one horsetail. There are three federally listed threatened and endangered plant species, and in addition over 300 species of native vascular plants are considered rare (GSMP, 2012).
Diversity of mammals and birds
Criterion
(x)
Research indicates that there are 65 species of mammals and over 200 varieties of birds in the Park. Within the boundaries of the Park there are a number of threatened or endangered species. There are 15 animal species listed as Federal Species of Concern found in the Park (GSMP, 2012).
Diversity of reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and aquatic fauna
Criterion
(x)
The Great Smoky Mountains National Park is one of the most biologically diverse parks in a temperate climate. The Park is also home to the world’s greatest diversity of salamander species (31) - an important indicator of overall ecosystem health - and is the center of diversity for lungless salamanders, with 24 species (World Heritage Committee, 2018). Within the boundaries of the Park there are a number of threatened or endangered species including 3 fish species.
Assessment information
The scenery of the Great Smoky Mountains has suffered from high ambient levels of air pollution and corresponding haze. At higher levels this is exacerbated by the sight of dead Fraser fir trees, killed by a non-native insect. The park's ambience is also adversely affected by high levels of visitation and associated traffic noise. However, the major threat to the site's Outstanding Universal Value comes from a diverse array of invasive alien species that include non-native mammals, fish, insects, fungi and other pathogens. These species have damaged habitats and species in the park to varying degrees, including aquatic habitats, riparian vegetation, the high-altitude zone and the mid-slopes. In particular, Fir trees, hemlock, native trout, and bats have been significantly affected, but represent just some of the species that are deteriorating as a result of invasive alien species. The cumulative impact of these invasive species combined with the stress produced by air pollution, a changed fire regime, and increasing severe weather due to climate change constitute a high threat to the attributes which qualified the park for listing under criteria (ix) and (x).
Recreational Activities
(High visitation)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Visitation to the National Park is consistently above 10 million people per annum, with a new record of over 13.3 million visits to the park in 2023 (NPS 2024c). This contributes to localized on-the-ground impacts, primarily in high-use areas (NPS 2016) and the park has noted in the past that "congestion inside and outside of the park detracts from scenic beauty" (NPS 2016). The park reports an increase in vandalism and graffiti on tunnels, walls, and boulders (NPS, 2016). As of 2016, budgets and staffing has not increased to match increases in visitation and maintenance costs (NPS, 2016) and in 2018, the park had over $235 million USD in deferred maintenance of infrastructure (NPS, 2018). However, in June 2020, the U.S. Congress passed the Great American Outdoors Act, which "established the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund to support deferred maintenance projects on federal lands" (U.S. Congress, 2020). This fund provided billions to address critical repairs at national parks to address (SELC 2020; Pew 2020) and will likely have bipartisan support to renew in mid-2025. This legislation also makes permanent the Land and Water Conservation Fund. However, major federal support from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act has been rescinded (Executive Order 2025), halting significant climate change and green energy projects.
Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species, Introduced Modified Genetic Material, Pathogens
(Invasive animals, plants, pathogens, insects and other biological intrusions)
Other invasive species names
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brown trout (Salmo trutt), hog (Sus scrofo Linn), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), mimosa (Albizzia julibrissin), oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), hemlock and balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae, Adelges piceae)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
The park is facing one of its greatest ecological crises since the chestnut blight in the form of the hemlock woolly adelgid (NPS and GSMA, 2010). Forest health is declining, affecting key species (NPS, 2016). Without successful intervention, the invasive hemlock woolly adelgid is likely to kill most of the hemlocks, which play an important role by providing deep shade along creeks, maintaining cool micro-climates critical to survival of trout and other cold-water species. The impact of widespread loss of hemlock could trigger changes more significant than those that followed the demise of the American chestnut in the 1930s and 40s (NPS, 2020c). The introduced balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae) is an insect pest that infests and kills stands of Fraser fir (Abies fraseri), formerly the dominant tree at the highest elevations; affected trees literally starve to death, and thousands of dead trees are all that are left on the highest mountain peaks (NPS, 2020c). Further serious impacts to the vegetation and ecosystems of the park are occurring from the Emerald Ash Borer and the Dogwood Anthracnose (NPS, 2020; NPS data.gov, 2020; Kays, 2017). There are over 380 non-native plant species in the Park; 35 of those are aggressive and pose a threat to the park’s ecosystem. Many of these species are found in sites that have undergone recent disturbance, and, once established, they are aggressive competitors with native plants and can change natural succession. Other problems caused by non-native plants include interbreeding with closely related native species and out-competing rare native plants that require specialized habitats. At least 8 of these species are prolific in the park (Japanese grass, privet, multiflora rose, Japanese honeysuckle, mimosa garlic mustard, oriental bittersweet, musk thistle), and present a significant threat to the ecosystem (NPS, 2004, 2016, 2020c). Exotic wild hogs in the park damage wetlands and other habitats, compete with native animals for food, and introduce diseases. According to the NPS, 'the hogs will eat just about anything, including red-cheeked salamanders (Plethodon jordani), which are found only in the park, and the roots and foliage of wildflowers that often take years to mature and bloom'; a combination of trapping, shooting and establishment of exclosures is used by the NPS to manage this problem (NPS, 2020c). Introduced rainbow and brown trout are competing with native Brook trout (Moore et al., 2005; NPS 2024l). According to sources, the native brook trout has lost 75% of its range within the park since the 1900s (NPS, 2020a). Collectively, virtually all of the park's ecosystems are under threat from the particular and cumulative impacts of the range of invasive alien plants, animals, insects and pathogens.
Pathogens
(White-Nose Syndrome)
Other invasive species names
Pseudogymnoascus destructans
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
The little brown bat faces a serious threat of extinction from the white-nose syndrome (NPS, 2020d). While assessed as 'low threat' to the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage site, it is an existential threat to this species and contributes to cumulative impacts on the site.
Other Human Disturbances
(Noise pollution and light pollution)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
According to the park sources, “noise and light pollution are affecting the wilderness experience in some areas” (NPS, 2016). In particular, “the sound of motorcycle traffic on the park roads can be heard a considerable distance into the wilderness”, and “low-level overflights by air-tour helicopters have been a persistent issue for a number of years” (NPS, 2016). In 2022, the park complete an Air Tour Management Plan (ATMP) which provides the terms and conditions for commercial air tours conducted over Great Smoky Mountains National Park pursuant to the National Parks Air Tour Management Act (Act) of 2000 (NPS 2022). The impacts of light pollution from increasing residential and commercial development (outside the park) on the clarity of the park's night skies have been noted (NPS, 2016).
Fire & Fire Management
(Altered fire regime)
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
The park's historic and prehistoric fire regime was altered by decades of deliberate fire suppression and fire prevention in the 20th century. In the last 25 years, there has been a substantial change of policy, resulting in significant parts of the park treated with prescribed burns (NPS, 2020g). The NPS has made considerable positive progress on this front.
Changes in Physical & Chemical Regimes, Changes in Temperature Regimes, Changes in Precipitation & Hydrological Regime
(Severe storms, hurricanes)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Outside site
In October 2024 areas near Balsam Mountain, Big Creek, and Cataloochee Valley experienced substantial damage from hurricane Helene (category 4) (NPS 2024c). Previously, hurricanes of this scale and intensity were extremely rare, but are more likely to happen in the future as rainfall has been increasing in the park since the 1950's because of warmer temperatures (CCRP 2024). Balsam Mountain Road, a section of the road in Cataloochee Valley, and a couple of trails, all of which suffered major failure, remain closed as of June 15, 2025 (IUCN Consultation, 2025).
Although temperatures have increased nationally, Great Smoky Mountains National Park has not experienced substantial warming. Low-level clouds cool the region by reflecting sunlight and creating a temperature-buffering effect in the humid forest canopies, which has likely helped stabilize local temperatures. However, the average daily maximum temperature in Tennessee’s Sevier County, the gateway to the Great Smoky Mountains, is projected to increase by up to 6°F by mid-century compared to the average temperature for the period 1961 to 1990. In the mid-latitudes, which includes Tennessee, some climate models predict that warming will result in a decrease in the coverage of low-level clouds. A decline in cloud coverage would reduce the cloud immersion that is vital to the Great Smoky Mountains’ high-elevation spruce-fir forests. Additionally, reductions in lower-level clouds at the mid-latitudes reduces the amount of sunlight they reflect. Through this feedback loop, a decline in the Great Smoky Mountains’ low-hanging clouds could bring about further warming. Current conditions in the Great Smoky Mountains support high biodiversity, and changes to temperature and precipitation patterns could affect ecosystems in a variety of ways. Warming temperatures could have negative impacts on the park’s wildlife, such as the Great Smoky Mountains’ 30 species of salamanders that require moist conditions to survive (EPA, 2025).
Extreme rainfall events in Great Smoky Mountains National Park cause flash flooding that can damage terrain and close park facilities. The Great Smoky Mountains are particularly prone to flash flooding because of their steep topography, which produces rapid runoff since water travels faster downhill over land and into streams and rivers. In recent years, flooding has affected many of the park’s roads and trails, leading to extended closures. In July 2022, the Greenbrier area of the park in Tennessee temporarily closed after the area received almost nine inches of rain within several hours. During the extreme rainfall event, flooding washed out multiple roads and trails, which remained closed for almost a year (EPA, 2025).
In addition to flooding, extreme rainfall can trigger landslides. Mountainous terrain, like that of eastern Tennessee, is at greater risk for landslides when rain makes soil heavier and slipperier. Landslides can also disrupt the park’s transportation infrastructure.
Climate change can impact precipitation frequency and intensity. As average temperatures at the Earth’s surface rise, more evaporation and transpiration occur and add more moisture to the air, which in turn increases overall precipitation. In recent decades, more rainfall is occurring as intense heavy precipitation events. The number of days with extreme rainfall in Tennessee has been above average since 1990. The frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall events is projected to increase in the future (EPA, 2025).
Although temperatures have increased nationally, Great Smoky Mountains National Park has not experienced substantial warming. Low-level clouds cool the region by reflecting sunlight and creating a temperature-buffering effect in the humid forest canopies, which has likely helped stabilize local temperatures. However, the average daily maximum temperature in Tennessee’s Sevier County, the gateway to the Great Smoky Mountains, is projected to increase by up to 6°F by mid-century compared to the average temperature for the period 1961 to 1990. In the mid-latitudes, which includes Tennessee, some climate models predict that warming will result in a decrease in the coverage of low-level clouds. A decline in cloud coverage would reduce the cloud immersion that is vital to the Great Smoky Mountains’ high-elevation spruce-fir forests. Additionally, reductions in lower-level clouds at the mid-latitudes reduces the amount of sunlight they reflect. Through this feedback loop, a decline in the Great Smoky Mountains’ low-hanging clouds could bring about further warming. Current conditions in the Great Smoky Mountains support high biodiversity, and changes to temperature and precipitation patterns could affect ecosystems in a variety of ways. Warming temperatures could have negative impacts on the park’s wildlife, such as the Great Smoky Mountains’ 30 species of salamanders that require moist conditions to survive (EPA, 2025).
Extreme rainfall events in Great Smoky Mountains National Park cause flash flooding that can damage terrain and close park facilities. The Great Smoky Mountains are particularly prone to flash flooding because of their steep topography, which produces rapid runoff since water travels faster downhill over land and into streams and rivers. In recent years, flooding has affected many of the park’s roads and trails, leading to extended closures. In July 2022, the Greenbrier area of the park in Tennessee temporarily closed after the area received almost nine inches of rain within several hours. During the extreme rainfall event, flooding washed out multiple roads and trails, which remained closed for almost a year (EPA, 2025).
In addition to flooding, extreme rainfall can trigger landslides. Mountainous terrain, like that of eastern Tennessee, is at greater risk for landslides when rain makes soil heavier and slipperier. Landslides can also disrupt the park’s transportation infrastructure.
Climate change can impact precipitation frequency and intensity. As average temperatures at the Earth’s surface rise, more evaporation and transpiration occur and add more moisture to the air, which in turn increases overall precipitation. In recent decades, more rainfall is occurring as intense heavy precipitation events. The number of days with extreme rainfall in Tennessee has been above average since 1990. The frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall events is projected to increase in the future (EPA, 2025).
Air-borne Pollutants
(Air pollution)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
Air pollutants from sources outside the park, though reduced from levels in decades past due to emission controls, are having a wide range of documented impacts, tarnishing scenic views, increasing the pH in high-elevation streams, depositing mercury, and damaging plants (NPS, 2016). Although 5 park water resources are designated as “Outstanding Natural Resource Waters”, 12 of the park's streams are listed by the EPA as impaired due to acidification, and some 18% of park streams are currently too acidic to support fish and other aquatic life; this source says that some models indicate that it will take over 100 years for some streams to recover sufficiently to support fish again. Airborne pollution from nearby agriculture in the region contributes to the park’s nitrogen deposition (NPS, 2016). However, as of 2017, several air pollution metrics show an improving trend over the previous 10 years: visibility/haze index is fair and improving; ozone/vegetation health is fair and improving; sulfur deposition/wet deposition is poor but improving (NPS, 2017a). Nitrogen deposition/wet deposition is poor with an unchanging trend, but the park’s ecosystems have very low sensitivity to nitrogen-enrichment effects (NPS, 2017a). According to the park, “mercury deposition is increasingly posing a significant threat to the food web of aquatic and terrestrial resources of the park” (NPS, 2016). Reductions in nearby power plant emissions have had a positive impact on air quality (NPCA 2024), but the site still has some of the worst air quality of all the US national parks (NPS 2024m).
Didymosphenia geminata poses a potential threat to the site's streams and aquatic habitat, as well as cumulative impacts from poor air quality and pollutants. Climate change impacts, including a potentially more frequent hurricane events, will seriously exacerbate existing impacts. Furthermore, US national parks are facing challenges from government changes which impact staff numbers and funding for operational and management needs, further enhanced by increasing climate change impacts. This creates uncertainty regarding the medium-term impact on sustainable finance for essential management activities.
Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species
(Didymo)
Other invasive species names
Didymo, 'rock snot', (Didymosphenia geminata)
Outside site
Didymosphenia geminata, commonly known as Didymo or “rock snot” is an algae that grows in many North American freshwater streams. Once established in streams it forms extensive mats on stream beds, and chokes out other aquatic life. Didymo is not presently known to be in the Smokies, but is found in all tailwater streams in eastern Tennessee. The algae easily attaches to the felt soles of fisherman’s wading shoes and is readily introduced into other streams.
Changes in Temperature Regimes, Changes in Precipitation & Hydrological Regime
(Hurricanes & severe storms)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
Climate change, combined with existing threats such as air pollution and invasive alien species, has the potential to severely jeopardise significant parts of the site's OUV. A range of possible impacts from climate change have been predicted (NPS 2020e). There has been a 50-year warming trend, a later advent of winter frosts, and earlier spring warming (NPS, 2016). Other studies have suggested that future climate change might compromise the capacity for these forests to sustain habitat suitability (McDonnell et al., 2018). Tuttle (2019) suggests that the interactions between 'multiple stressors', including climate change and fire suppression are factors in impacts on vegetation. Severe storms will also occur more frequently, bringing increased quantity and intensity of precipitation, temperature extremes, wildfires and invasive alien species. It will be crucial for the park management to plan for potential impacts through available data and case studies, scenario planning, and the integration of Traditional knowledge.
Removing/Reducing Human Management
(Changes in staff capacity and funding)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
US national parks are facing challenges from government changes which impact staff numbers and funding for operational and management needs, further enhanced by increasing climate change impacts (e.g. Matza, 2025; Rosenblat, 2025). This creates uncertainty regarding the medium-term impact on sustainable finance for essential management activities.
Involvement of stakeholders and rightsholders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, in decision-making processes
Government park management is supported by NGOs that include Friends of the Smokies, the National Park Foundation and the Smokies Life (previously known as Great Smoky Mountain Association). According to the NPS, 2,119 volunteers donated 116,375 hours in Fiscal Year 2023 (NPS 2025h). The only formal agreement found with associated Tribal Nations is with the Eastern Band of Cherokee for gathering plants (NPS 2019b; State Party of the United States, 2023), and no other publicly available evidence of issues with the relationship between the park and the Cherokee that need to be resolved. In 2024, the tallest mountain peak in the park, Clingmans Dome, was renamed to Kuwohi, which means “mulberry place” in the Cherokee language, honouring connections to a sacred site (NPS 2024a).
Legal framework
The legal framework applying to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park consists of federal laws and the park regulations set out in the Superintendent's Compendium that cover issues such as campfires, road closures, interactions with bears, traffic, permits etc. (NPS 2024i). The site is governed by federal regulations that apply to all national-park lands. Other relevant federal acts cover establishment of the National Park Service, air quality, water quality, environmental policy, wild and scenic rivers, endangered and threatened species, historic preservation, and archaeological resources protection. These statutes are very effective in maintaining the Outstanding Universal Value of the site. A concern stems from a 2020 federal law enabling people to carry firearms into the park, thereby endangering park rangers and complicating enforcement (NPS 2024i).
Governance arrangements
The Great Smoky Mountains is governed by the US National Park Service which mandates stakeholder input in certain plans and projects such as construction projects that trigger Section 106 and NEPA, Environmental Impact Assessments, and the Climate Friendly Parks Strategy. Associated Tribal Nations must also be consulted, however only federally recognized Tribes are required to be consulted on a "government-to-government" basis (ACHP 2021). The NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) system is where compliance for projects are documented and shared with the public. However, some planning processes, such as Resource Stewardship Strategies, do not require public comment or Tribal input, so it is up to park management to seek it out if desired.
Integration into local, regional and national planning systems (including sea/landscape connectivity)
Park management has extensive partnerships and close working relationships with County, State and Federal agencies beyond the National Parks Service, especially focused on collaborative regional management through the Southern Appalachian Mountains; the Biosphere Committee (SAMAB)(NPS 2008). Park management documents describe the park's various designations under federal and state laws pertaining to clean air, national parks and clean waterways (NPS 2016).
Boundaries
The boundaries of the World Heritage site are well established and enclose a large tract of wild country. There is no buffer zone and park management has no intention of creating one (State Party of the United States, 2023). The Appalachian Trail, a popular long-distance hike, goes through the site and overnight camping in the backcountry (including through hikers require a permit (NPS 2024i).
Overlapping international designations
In 1988, five years after the World Heritage Site designation, the park was included in a seven-state international biosphere reserve under the UNESCO MAB programme. The entire World Heritage boundary is included in the Southern Appalachian Biosphere Region (SABR), a public/private partnership promoting the environmental health and stewardship of natural, economic, and cultural resources in the South Appalachians (SABR, 2023). The Southern Appalachian Biosphere Cooperative (SABC) was originally established as the Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB) Program in 1989. The Cooperative is the administrative body of the UNESCO-recognized Southern Appalachian Biosphere Region. The Cooperative consists of an Executive Committee alongside representative leaders from protected lands (public and private), the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and gateway communities throughout Southern Appalachia. According to the latest Periodic Report, the World Heritage site management authorities are regularly in contact with the BR focal point (State Party of the United States, 2023)
Implementation of World Heritage Committee decisions and recommendations
The State Party was commended for its responsiveness with respect to air quality issues (World Heritage Committee, 2002) as well as for its work to address the threat from North Shore Road construction into a wild, undeveloped area of the park (World Heritage Committee, 2006). Other than the adoption of a retrospective Statement of OUV, there have been no further relevant decisions by the Committee recently.
Climate action
Great Smoky Mountains National Park participates in the Climate Friendly Parks Program, which shares resources about climate-friendly practices with visitors. These practices help visitors understand different actions they can take to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change, such as carpooling; taking one of the trolleys in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, to the park; or turning off lights and appliances in cabins or campers when not in use. Great Smoky Mountains National Park also has an Action Plan that describes the park’s emission reduction goals and the actions needed to achieve these goals. Researchers are monitoring animals and plants in the Great Smoky Mountains to better understand their responses to a changing climate. Visitors can support the research process by uploading photos documenting seasonal change to the National Phenology Network’s Nature’s Notebook Program. These observations help to provide information about long-term trends and capture the larger picture of how climate change is affecting species and seasonal changes in the Great Smoky Mountains. The park’s trail crew and volunteers have restored many Great Smoky Mountains trails, making them safer for hikers and repairing past damage from landslides and erosion.21 The installation of drainage features and retaining walls during the renovations has also made trails more durable and resilient to heavy rainfall. Further investments in trail adaptation can help prepare the park for the projected increase in frequent and intense heavy rainfall events (EPA, 2025).
Management plan and overall management system
The National Park Service is a world-class manager of World Heritage sites. The Great Smoky Mountains National Park has a comprehensive General Management Plan and a range of policies and programs that deal with fire, invasive alien species, outdoor recreation and tourism (NPS 2016).
Law enforcement
NGOs frequently express alarm and frustration about proposed and/or actual budget cuts on all parks by the national administration (NPCA 2019a) and the resulting impacts on law enforcement. Poaching of ginseng is a problem that receives considerable attention by rangers (NPS 2020). Law enforcement continues to decrease with positions declining by almost half (48%) between 2010 and 2023 (PEER 2024). Cuts to the park's operating budget in recent years have reduced the number of field law enforcement rangers on the park staff, with the result that most patrols are limited to the paved roads of the park, and thus backcountry and boundary encroachment concerns go unmet.
Sustainable finance
Due to a tradition that goes back to the park’s establishment in the 1930s, the NPS does not charge park entry-fees (NPS 2020l) although the park does receive funding from fees for backcountry usage and camping. However, in 2023 the park implemented the “Park it Forward” program, charging a fee for visitors parking anywhere in the park for more than 15 minutes (separate from the interagency pass). Since early 2024, the program has already generated $10 million in revenue (NPS 2024b). The NPS says that flat budgets from government have increased reliance on external financial support (NPS 2016). NGOs frequently express alarm and frustration about proposed and/or actual budget cuts on all parks applied by the national administration (NPCA 2019a). In 2018, the park had over $254 million in deferred maintenance of infrastructure in addition to $19 million in annual maintenance costs (NPS 2024j); however, in June 2020, the U.S. Congress passed the Great American Outdoors Act which "establishes the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund to support deferred maintenance projects on federal lands" (U.S. Congress 2020). This fund will provide "$9.5 billion over five years to address priority repairs in national parks and other public lands" (SELC 2020), and $6.65 billion of this fund will be directed to national parks to address critical repairs (Pew 2020). This legislation also makes permanent the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Although overall sustainable finance has been of some concern to date, the recent passing of this bill may address this issue in the future. In 2022 Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act which, for National Parks, opened up $120 million in funding to address critical ecosystem resilience, restoration, and environmental planning needs (DOI 2023), including four projects in and around the Smokies (NPS 2024f). However, since then US national parks are facing escalating challenges from government changes which impact staff numbers and funding for operational and management needs, further enhanced by increasing climate change impacts (e.g. Matza, 2025; Rosenblat, 2025). This creates uncertainty regarding the medium-term impact on sustainable finance for essential management activities.
Staff capacity, training and development
Increasing budgetary constraints outlined under 'sustainable finance' are placing increasing pressure on the NPS to maintain and train staff. In 2005 there were approximately 250 permanent and over 100 seasonal employees plus 1,892 volunteers (UNEP-WCMC 2011), and in 2023 there were approximately 200 permanent employees and 140 seasonal employees plus 2,119 volunteers (NPS 2024), putting more of a reliance on non-permanent positions. Since the implementation of the Park it Forward program in March 2023, the park has hired eight roving rangers and more than 25 rangers across the park including maintenance and preventative search and rescue (NPS 2024b).
Education and interpretation programmes
The Great Smoky Mountains National Park has excellent education and interpretation programs. It has an extremely informative website, well-signposted nature trails, excellent handout materials, a junior-ranger program, and other engaging on-site education programs (NPS 2021). They cover issues such as fire management, hemlock trees, exotic plants, air quality and wildlife interactions. There are free programs for children of school age that form part of the local curriculum. Newsletters cover seasonal changes and current conditions. These publications are augmented by similar programs run by NGOs such as Smokies Life (GSMA 2020) and the Great Smoky Mountains Institute at Tremont.
Tourism and visitation management
The park has 4 visitor centers, 11 campgrounds (106 sites), over 600 km of roads and over 1300 km of trails; many of the facilities are aging, management having had to defer maintenance (NPS 2016). The park's extraordinary rates of visitation, with almost 13.3 million visits to the park in 2023 presents a significant challenge in terms of management (NPS 2024c). Despite an estimated decrease in visitation in 2024 because of damage from Hurricane Helene, visitation is generally increasing, resulting in additional pressures on facilities, roads and other resources, associated increases in noise pollution, and an increase in graffiti and vandalism (NPS 2016). Crowding and congestion are problems in popular areas of the park, adversely affecting the visitor experience; opportunities for solitude and immersion in nature are becoming more difficult to find; crowding has resulted in increased wear and tear on park facilities; campgrounds become denuded and disturbed areas alongside roads are spreading (NPS 2016). Park infrastructure is ageing, much of it reaching the end of its life, but budgetary constraints have not enabled its renovation or replacement; as a result, natural and cultural resources are at risk (including from increased risk of sewage spills) (NPS 2016). The NPS and its NGO partners cope as best they can, but the situation is needs a long-term solution by way of capped visitor numbers and increased financial resources. The closure of the park in March 2020 due to COVID-19 was a temporary respite for park resources. An 18-month closure for rehabilitation of one of the most visited sites, Laurel Falls, will also allow needed recovery and upgrades to trails and parking areas (NPS 2024d).
Sustainable use
Tourism is the largest sustainable use in the park. The high and increasing numbers of tourists (NPS 2020b) combined with constraints on park fees has been a challenge to park managers to date. However, the recent establishment of the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund under the Great American Outdoors Act will support deferred maintenance projects on federal lands (U.S. Congress 2020) and the Inflation Reduction Act (NPS 2024f) may address this issue to some extent. This issue is discussed in more detail under 'tourism and visitation' and 'sustainable finance'.
In 2019, following an environmental assessment, public comment period, and a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM) entered into a historic general agreement with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) to allow enrolled members of the EBCI to gather sochan (Rudbeckia laciniata) in the park for traditional food purposes, authorized under the 2016 NPS Plant Gathering Rule (36 CFR 2.6). GRSM and the EBCI collaboratively monitor for impacts (State Party of the United States, 2023).
In 2019, following an environmental assessment, public comment period, and a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM) entered into a historic general agreement with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) to allow enrolled members of the EBCI to gather sochan (Rudbeckia laciniata) in the park for traditional food purposes, authorized under the 2016 NPS Plant Gathering Rule (36 CFR 2.6). GRSM and the EBCI collaboratively monitor for impacts (State Party of the United States, 2023).
Monitoring
The USA national-park system has a division dedicated to Inventory & Monitoring (I&M) which has a comprehensive long-term monitoring program organized by region (NPS 2024e). The park has numerous monitoring program; details of many of them, including on air quality, water quality, salamander surveys, bird surveys and the 'all taxa inventory' are available online (NPS, 2020o). In particular, the park has adopted a 'Vital Signs' monitoring protocol, focused on six key factors to indicate park health - acid deposition, vegetative communities, soil quality, water chemistry, freshwater communities, and climate change (NPS 2014; NPS 2022b). Data from I&M is open and available to the public at data.gov. Social science monitoring on indicators such as visitation, visitor experience, communication effectiveness, and economic impact is relatively less structured.
Research
There is a vibrant research program in the park with numerous research permits issued annually. The park shares data publicly and encourages other researchers to provide additional data (NPS 2025b). Programs include the All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory, endangered species research and management, invasive species research and management, and re-introduction of species. In addition, the park also operates the Appalachian Highlands Science Learning Center (NPS 2008; NPS 2024k), 1 of 17 research learning centers in the National Park System. Over the past decade, the park's all taxa biodiversity inventory seeks to inventory 100,000 species of living organisms (NPS 2023) and has identified over 22,143 species in the park, including 11,232 species not previously known in the park, and 1,092 species new to science (DLIA 2024). NGOs such as Smokies Life and Friends of Great Smoky Mountain National Park (NPS 2024g), as well as the Great Smoky Mountains Institute at Tremont (Tremont 2025), support and augment these research programs. The Inflation Reduction Act will also open new avenues of research by providing universities and partner organizations with funding, including forest resiliency, fish species vulnerability, swine control and collaborative landscape design (NPS 2024f).
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats outside the site
The Great Smoky Mountains is the most studied National Park in the US, and park management facilitates and assists with research permits, as well as fostering community science (NPS 2024), which helps identify and address threats both inside and outside of the site. At a park level, management is actively addressing climate change impacts and communicating known and potential stressors (NPS 2024). However, the federal government creates and implements policies that all park units must follow, and with new executive orders, millions of dollars of obligated funding for addressing climate change impacts and green energy will be rescinded (Executive Order 2025) impacting current and future research and management plans. Air pollution from outside the site also remains an issue, but, like many national park units, there is a strong air quality monitoring program and a website with live information (NPS Air 2025).
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats inside the site
Management of the national park is highly effective. A comprehensive suite of management instruments designed to deal with varying aspects of park management (NPS 2020h) are detailed under the management plan and implemented by the NPS and its NGO partners. It is a class I area under the Clean Air Act; significant parts of the park are managed as wilderness; its waterways enjoy special designations under state laws (NPS 2016). The park has large and active programs in ecology, air quality and fire ecology. The park has re-introduction programs for previously extirpated animals such as elk (NPS 2020i) and southern Appalachian brook trout (NPS 2020p) in order to restore habitats.
The Great Smoky Mountains National Park is managed by a world-class parks authority that is backed by a strong legal framework. Laws and regulations designed to protect the site include federal legislation for national parks as well as instruments that deal with on-the-ground practicalities such as traffic, firearms, parking, campfires, interactions with wildlife, walking trails and permits. Various formal planning instruments cover issues such as fire management and invasive species. A large part of the park is managed as wilderness. These measures create a solid foundation for effective management. This positive situation is enhanced by generous financial and volunteer support from the environmental NGO sector. The park has world-class programs for education, interpretation, monitoring and research. Despite these positives, the NPS is challenged by the sheer numbers of visitors as the park experiences by far the highest visitation of any of the 63 National Parks. Nor does it have the resources to deal with the threat to the site's OUV from a host of invasive alien species, whose management intervention requirements are complex and resource intensive. Reliable long-term funding from government has been a challenge. While the passing of the Great American Outdoors Act, with associated funding may address this issue, proposed cuts to environmental and climate programs, including cuts to staff in national parks, are of concern. Funding from the recent parking fee program and partner organizations may mitigate governmental cuts.
Good practice examples
There are numerous examples of best management practices in the park. Examples are the Elk re-introduction program, restoration of native Brook Trout, prescribed fire management, the wild-hog reduction program, bear management, education and interpretive programs, and resource and visitor protection programs.
Exceptional natural beauty
Low Concern
Trend
Data Deficient
The vistas of characteristic mist-shrouded (“smoky”) mountains which give the site it's scenic values remain of low concern albeit having been adversely impacted to some extent. The heavy mortality of hemlock trees, with remnant dead Fraser fir trees also still visible, caused by non-native insect pests has reduced the ecological integrity of the forest types associated with these species. Meanwhile, the general ambience within the park has suffered as a result of high levels of visitation and the resulting congestion and noise pollution. However the newly established National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund (U.S. Congress 2020) provides an opportunity to improve visitor management through funds for deferred maintenance projects in the site. Haze from air pollution still sometimes shrouds the views in the park, however the visibility and haze index have been improving over the course of the past few decades (NPCA, 2019b; NPS 2022c).
Outstanding example of the diverse Arcto-Tertiary geoflora era
High Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
The flora in the site is of high concern, largely due to insidious and sustained damage from a host of alien and invasive species which include insects, pathogens, weeds and mammals. Most notable is the impacts on key tree species by woolly adelgids; great stands of Fraser fir on the upper slopes of the peaks have been killed by balsam woolly adelgid; and a significant proportion of the hemlocks, one of the park's most common trees, have suffered from die back caused by hemlock woolly adelgid. This issue is particularly challenging due to current management efforts which focus on chemical treatments administered to individual or small groups of trees (NPS, 2020), making the necessary scaling up of treatment to address this widespread issue difficult. Longer term options, such as resistance breeding through hybridization and biocontrol treatments, are being developed, and preliminary monitoring results have been reported as encouraging, albeit in 2015 (NPS, 2015). However such integrated treatments are also complex and their efficacy can very according to external factors such as weather (Sumpter et al., 2018). Non-native wild hogs are destroying other types of vegetation and degrading wetlands, however sustained management interventions may reduce the threat of this particular species (IUCN Consultation, 2020; Levy, 2016; 2017). Significant efforts have been undertaken by park managers, NGOs and volunteers to tackle these invasive species- the park service has at least twenty staff members whose primary role centres around controlling invasive species (Smoky Mountain News, 2019). Additionally, the National Park Service has commenced a system-wide effort to address invasive animal species (Smoky Mountain News 2019). However, there is a need for significantly more resources, without which the situation will likely deteriorate further.
Significant example of continuing biological evolution
Low Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
Large parts of the site are managed as wilderness and thus remain relatively intact in many parts. The cove forest which occupies 24% of the site and represents the largest ecological system is in good condition along with mesic oak forest and northern hardwood forests according to the most recent data (Klein et al., 2017). However, the ongoing biological evolution and ecological processes are being disrupted by alien and invasive species that include non-native pathogens, insects, plants, mammals and fish, and therefore there is a degree of concern, particularly in the low altitude forest systems and dry oak forest, which currently show a high degree of departure from their 'natural' state (Klein et al., 2017).
Diversity of flora
High Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
The flora of the site is of high concern due to the high level threats facing a number of species, and the challenging nature of addressing these threats at the scale required, as many of these threats originate outside of the site or are currently only able to be addressed at a small scale with the current management capacity (Smoky Mountain News, 2019; IUCN Consultation, 2020). Some plant species suffer from poaching (ginseng, trillium, and other flowering and medicinal plants) (NPS, 2018b; Taylor, 2016; WBIR, 2017); others from non-native and invasive species (hemlocks, dogwood, beech, ash and Fraser fir) (NPS, 2015). Wild hogs are degrading wetlands and eating rare plants. Although control efforts are underway for many of these threats (Levy, 2016; 2017; NPS, 2015; Smoky Mountains News, 2019), the diversity of flora can be assessed as deteriorating overall, with several of the tree species affected critical to the ecological health of large parts of the national park. Climate change is likely to exacerbate this situation, although greater understanding of the projected impacts is required in order to fully assess the this threat.
Diversity of mammals and birds
Low Concern
Trend
Data Deficient
The site remains an important area for a diversity of mammals and birds, with 274 species recorded in the digital observatory on protected areas (DOPA), of which only two are endangered (little brown bat and eastern small-footed bat), with a further seven vulnerable (eastern spotted skunk; gray bat; cerulean warbler; horned grebe; evening grosbeak; rusty blackbird and chimney swift) (DOPA, 2020). However, the low proportion of threatened species in the site does not serve to suggest that mammal and bird species are not subject to threats within the site. For example, the little brown bat in particular faces a serious threat of extinction from white-nose syndrome (NPS, 2020d). While assessed as 'low threat' to the overall OUV of the park, it is an existential threat to this species and contributes to cumulative impacts on the World Heritage site. More generally, continuation of the existing research and monitoring on the current and projected impacts of from air pollution, the legacy of unnaturally altered fire regime, ongoing tree mortality, and the rapidly evolving impacts of climate change on the diversity of birds and mammals in the site is needed to determine more accurately the level of threat faced.
Diversity of reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and aquatic fauna
Low Concern
Trend
Stable
The site contains over 2,100 miles of streams, which provide important habitat to 67 species of fish in 12 different families (NPS 2024l) as well as a number of other aquatic fauna. Aquatic habitats within the World Heritage site have been adversely impacted by a number of factors, including the displacement of native southern Appalachian brook trout by brown and rainbow trout (NPS n.d.). However, Great Smoky Mountains fisheries staff have made substantial efforts to re-establish native brook trout within appropriate rivers in the site and have restored brook trout back to 14.6 miles of their native range since 1986 (NPS 2024l) along with rainbow trout removal programs in parallel (Smoky Mountain News 2019). In this regard the aquatic habitats can be considered to be improving, however threats remain through the potential loss of the important shade provided by hemlocks, and acid rain and toxic deposits resulting from air pollution (IUCN Consultation, 2020) such that the trend is deemed stable in this assessment.
Assessment of the current state and trend of World Heritage values
Deteriorating
The Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park is currently of low concern overall as the ecosystems covering the majority of the site, and species therein, remain in relatively good or moderate condition, and the scenic values therefore have been largely maintained. However, some systems, notably the more xeric low altitude pine and dry oak forests have deteriorated due to an array of threats that include air pollution and resultant deposition of toxins; over-crowding and noise pollution; the legacy of misguided fire suppression; climate change; and a host of invasive species in the form of non-native pathogens, insects, mammals and fish. The park manager and NGO partners are tackling these multi-faceted threats with great dedication despite the complexity of management requirements and challenges in scale.
Additional information
Outdoor recreation and tourism,
Natural beauty and scenery
With over 1300 km of trails of varying standards available to park visitors, the site is a destination for outdoor recreation activities for visitors from across the USA and around the world.
The quality of visitor experience is influenced by numerous factors including the extent of air and water pollution, visibility, traffic congestion, and crowding of popular sites. While developed areas of the park are overcrowded in the peak visitor season, backcountry trails (except for the Appalachian Trail) are seldom overused, and remain a major attraction for visitors.
Importance for research,
Contribution to education
Education is a key component of the park values, from in-park education/interpretive programs, to higher education and research programs for colleges and universities. The Great Smoky Mountain Institute at Tremont and the Appalachian Highlands Science Learning Centre provide education programs to promote the ecology, culture and stewardship of the site.
The factors are themselves objects of study but can have negative impacts on the intrinsic attributes of the park and the value of those attributes for education.
Importance for research
The park serves as a benchmark for contrasting the character of undisturbed environments with disturbed areas outside the park. There are numerous papers and websites dedicated to long-term monitoring of park characteristics, such as air and water quality, exotic pests and climate change.
The factors are themselves objects of study but have negative impacts on the intrinsic attributes of the park and the value of those attributes for research and education.
History and tradition,
Wilderness and iconic features,
Sacred natural sites or landscapes,
Sacred or symbolic plants or animals,
Cultural identity and sense of belonging
The park was originally the land of the Cherokee, who lived there for over a thousand years. Their descendants maintain a spiritual link with these lands. Following its creation in the 1930s, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park has inspired a wealth of poetry, literature and art from people who enjoy adventure, seclusion and challenge within its boundaries.
The park's spiritual values to all people are diminished by the noise, over-crowding, congestion and light pollution of the night skies that come with the park's millions of visitors each year. The gradual erosion of the park's ecological integrity by exotic organisms and the sight of large tracts of dead trees have a similar impact.
Carbon sequestration,
Flood prevention,
Water provision (importance for water quantity and quality)
The large tracts of forest sequester large quantities of carbon, a positive factor in addressing climate change. The park's catchments provide reliable and clean waters to adjoining reservoirs. With climate change likely to cause intensified storms in the region, the parks's forested slopes and stable soils help mitigate floods.
Acid rain and deposition of toxins from air pollution and the gradually escalating impacts of climate change negatively affect these benefits.
The Great Smoky Mountains National Park provides a recreational and spiritual resource to many thousands of park users. It provides a multitude of opportunities for outdoor recreation and associated benefits for physical and mental health for users of the park. Ecosystem services come in the form of carbon sequestration, provision of reliable water and flood mitigation. The huge tourist industry that relies on the park provides thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars worth of incomes to the local and regional economies. Opportunities for research and enhanced education abound within the national park and these opportunities have been exploited by at least two well-established educational institutions within the park's precinct.
| № | Organization | Brief description of Active Projects | Website |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Great Smoky Mountains Institute at Tremont | Numerous programs including photography, science, adventure treks, field naturalism and ecological expeditions. |
https://gsmit.org/program/calendar/
|
| 2 | NPS / Appalachian Highlands Science Learning Center | Numerous programs, including high-school internships, citizen science, specific research projects and school programs. |
https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/nature/pk-homepage.htm
|
References
| № | References |
|---|---|
| 1 |
ACHP (2021). Advisory Council for Historic Preservation: Consultation with Indian Tribes in the Section 106 Review Process. [online] Available at: https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/Consultati… [Accessed 17 February 2025].
|
| 2 |
CCRP (2024). Great Smoky Mountains National Park climate futures summary. Climate Change Response Program [online] National Park Service: Fort Collins, CO. Available at: https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2303546 [Accessed 9 February 2025].
|
| 3 |
DLIA (2024). Discover Life in America / Smokies Species Tally. [online] Available at: https://dlia.org/smokies-species-tally/ [Accessed 9 February 2025].
|
| 4 |
DOI (2023). US Department of the Interior / Inflation Reduction Act Invests Over $120 Million in Proven Projects to Advance Climate Resilience, Conservation and Equity. [online] https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/inflation-reduction-act-i… [Accessed 17 February 2025].
|
| 5 |
DOPA. (2020). Great Smoky Mountains National Park. [online] Digital Observatory for Protected Areas Explorer 4, Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Available at: https://dopa-explorer.jrc.ec.europa.eu/wdpa/9632 (Accessed 25 September 2020).
|
| 6 |
EPA (2025). Climate Change Connections: Tennessee (Great Smoky Mountains). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Updated online 16 January 2025. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-connectio….
|
| 7 |
Executive Order (2025). Unleashing American Energy. Issued 20 January 2025. [online] Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unl… [Accessed 17 February 2025].
|
| 8 |
IUCN (1982) World Heritage Nomination - IUCN Technical Evaluation, Great Smoky Mountains National Park (United States of America). [online] Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/259/documents/ (Accessed 1 December 2020).
|
| 9 |
IUCN consultation (2020). IUCN confidential consultation: Great Smoky Mountains National Park (United States of America)
|
| 10 |
Levy, B., Collins, C., Lenhart, S., & Stiver, W. (2017). Evaluating wild hog preferences to guide control strategies in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Natural Resource Modeling, 30(3), e12132.
|
| 11 |
Levy, B., Collins, C., Lenhart, S., Madden, M., Corn, J., Salinas, R. A., & Stiver, W. (2016). A metapopulation model for feral hogs in great smoky mountains national park. Natural Resource Modeling, 29(1), 71-97.
|
| 12 |
Matza, M. (2025). Cuts to national parks and forests met with backlash. BBC News. Seattle, Washington. Published online 1. March 2025. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx7kez4vx2o
|
| 13 |
NPCA (2017a). House Votes to Weaken Clean Air Protections for Parks, Visitors, 18 July 2017. [online] National Park Conservation Association. Available at: https://www.npca.org/articles/1594-house-votes-to-weaken-cl… [Accessed 29 March 2020].
|
| 14 |
NPCA (2019a). Media Release: President’s Budget Proposal Damaging to National Parks as They Continue to Recover from Government Shutdown [online] National Parks Conservation Association. Available at: https://www.npca.org/articles/2130-president-s-budget-propo…;(Accessed 30 March 2020).
|
| 15 |
NPCA (2024). Clearing the Air in the Smokies, 1 May 2024. [online] Available at: https://www.npca.org/articles/3777-clearing-the-air-in-the-… [Accessed 19 February 2025].
|
| 16 |
NPCA (2010). New Law to Allow Loaded Guns in National Parks Puts Park Visitors, Wildlife, and America's Heritage at Risk, 19 February 2010. [online] National Parks Conservation Association. Available at: https://www.npca.org/articles/554-new-law-to-allow-loaded-g… (Accessed 30 March 2020).
|
| 17 |
NPCA (2018). Willfully Ignoring Climate Change Is a Disaster for National Parks [online] National Parks Conservation Association, Mark Wenzler. Available at: https://www.npca.org/articles/1724-willfully-ignoring-clima… (Accessed 14 March 2020).
|
| 18 |
NPCA. (2019b). Polluted Parks Report. [online] National Parks Conservation Association. Available at: https://npca.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/NPCAParksReport2019… (Accessed 25 September 2020).
|
| 19 |
NPR (2025). Layoffs accelerate at federal agencies with more cuts to come, Editors; S. Bond, J. Ludden, A. Hsu, L. Wamsley, and M, Copley. Updated 14 February 2025. [online] Available at: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/14/nx-s1-5298144/federal-layoff… [Accessed 17 February 2025].
|
| 20 |
NPS (2004). National Park Service Briefing Statement: Response to Exotic Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Infestation, Great Smoky Mountains National Park. January 28, 2004.
|
| 21 |
NPS (2008) Strategic Plan for Great Smoky Mountains National Park. October 1, 2008 – September 30, 2012. National Park Service.
|
| 22 |
NPS (2014). Conceptual plan for vital signs monitoring — Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Natural Resource Report NPS/GRSM/NRR—2014/854. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
|
| 23 |
NPS (2015) National Park Service: Great Smoky Mountains National Park Pest and Disease Monitoring. [online] National Park Service. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/nature/dff109-pest.htm [Accessed 1 December 2020].
|
| 24 |
NPS (2016) Foundation Document: Great Smoky Mountains National Park, North Carolina and Tennessee. October 2016. [online] National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/parkplanning/upload/Great-Smok…. [Accessed 17 February 2025].
|
| 25 |
NPS (2018a). NPS Asset Inventory Summary Data as of September 30, 2018. [online] National Park Service. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/upload/NPS-Asse… (Accessed 24 September 2020).
|
| 26 |
NPS (2019). National Park Service / Natural Sounds / Air Tours. [online] 1 October 2019, National Park Service. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sound/airtours.htm ;(Accessed 28 June 2020).
|
| 27 |
NPS (2019b). National Park Service / Planning, Environment & Public Comment / Sochan [turkey foot] Gathering for Traditional Purposes. [online] Available at: https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?ProjectID=82263 [Accessed 17 February 2025].
|
| 28 |
NPS (2020c). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Non-Native Species. [online] National Park Service. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/nature/non-native-species.htm (Accessed 29 March 2020).
|
| 29 |
NPS (2020d). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Cave bats in crisis. [online] National Park Service. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/nature/dff10-wns.htm (Accessed 29 March 2020).
|
| 30 |
NPS (2020e). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Monitoring climate change. [online] National Park Service. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/photosmultimedia/video-clima… (Accessed 29 March 2020).
|
| 31 |
NPS (2020f). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Protect Park Streams from Rock Snot [online] National Park Service. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/nature/didymo.htm ;(Accessed 29 March 2020).
|
| 32 |
NPS (2020g). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Wildlands Fire. [online] National Park Service. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/nature/wildlandfire.htm ;(Accessed 29 March 2020).
|
| 33 |
NPS (2020h). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Management. [online] National Park Service. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/management/index.htm ;(Accessed 29 March 2020).
|
| 34 |
NPS (2020i). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Elk. [online] National Park Service. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/nature/elk.htm ;(Accessed 29 March 2020).
|
| 35 |
NPS (2020j). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Park Statistics. [online] National Park Service. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/management/statistics.htm&nb…;(Accessed 30 March 2020).
|
| 36 |
NPS (2020l). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Why no entrance fee? [online] National Park Service. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/whyfree.htm (Accessed 30 March 2020).
|
| 37 |
NPS (2021). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Research Education. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/education/pk-education.htm [Accessed 17 February 2025].
|
| 38 |
NPS (2022).National Park Service / Planning, Environment & Public Comment / Final Air Tour Management Plan. [online] https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=123803 [Accessed 5 January 2025].
|
| 39 |
NPS (2022b). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains National Park / Nature and Science. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/nature/index.htm. [Accessed 17 February 2025].
|
| 40 |
NPS (2022c). National Park Service / Air Quality Conditions & Trends: Great Smoky Mountains National Park. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/park-conditions-trends.htm… [Accessed 17 February 2025].
|
| 41 |
NPS (2023). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Science & Parks / Scientific Research Projects in the Park. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/scienceresearch.htm [Accessed 9 February 2025].
|
| 42 |
NPS (2024). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Park Statistics. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/management/statistics.htm [Accessed 5 January 2025].
|
| 43 |
NPS (2024a). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Kuwohi name restored to the highest peak in the Smokies. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/news/kuwohi-name-restored-to… [Accessed 24 November 2024].
|
| 44 |
NPS (2024b). More than $10 million in improvements coming soon to Great Smoky Mountains National Park. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/news/more-than-$10-million-i… [Accessed 24 November 2024].
|
| 45 |
NPS (2024c). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Visitors to Great Smoky Mountains National Park spent $2.2 billion in local communities in 2023. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/news/visitors-to-great-smoky… [Accessed 9 February 2025].
|
| 46 |
NPS (2024d). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / National Park Service to begin major rehabilitation of Laurel Falls Trail in January. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/news/national-park-service-t… [Accessed 9 February 2025].
|
| 47 |
NPS (2024e). National Park Service / Inventory & Monitoring / Science Supporting Parks. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/im/index.htm [Accessed 9 February 2025].
|
| 48 |
NPS (2024f). National Park Service / Infrastructure / Inflation Reduction Act: Restoration and Resilience. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/inflation-reduc…(IRA,restoration%2C%20and%20environmental%20planning%20needs [Accessed 9 February 2025].
|
| 49 |
NPS (2024g). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Support Your Park. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/getinvolved/supportyourpark/index… [Accessed 9 February 2025].
|
| 50 |
NPS (2024h). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Park Statistics. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/management/statistics.htm [Accessed 5 January 2025].
|
| 51 |
NPS (2024i). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Laws and Policies. [online] National Park Service. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/management/lawsandpolicies.h…. [Accessed 17 February 2025].
|
| 52 |
NPS (2024j). National Park Service / Infrastructure / By the Numbers: Infrastructure. [ online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/deferred-mainte… [Accessed 17 February 2025].
|
| 53 |
NPS (2024k). Appalachian Highlands Science Learning Center. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/nature/pk-homepage.htm. [Accessed 17 February 2024].
|
| 54 |
NPS (2024l). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / Fish. [online] National Park Service. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/nature/fish.htm. [Accessed 17 February 2025].
|
| 55 |
NPS (2024m). National Park Service / Park Air Profiles - Great Smoky Mountains National Park. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/articles/airprofiles-grsm.htm#:~:text=a… [Accessed 19 February 2025].
|
| 56 |
NPS (2025). National Park Service / Air / Live Weather & Air Quality Data: Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee/North Carolina. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/current-data.htm?site=grsm… [Accessed 17 February 2025].
|
| 57 |
NPS (2025b). National Park Service / Great Smoky Mountains / A description of data sets available to researchers. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/nature/datasets.htm [Accessed 17 February 2025].
|
| 58 |
NPS (n.d.). Great Smoky Mountains / Trout Population Dynamics. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/nature/population-dynamics.h…. [Accessed 17 February 2025].
|
| 59 |
NPS and GSMA (2010). National Park Service and Great Smoky Mountains Association. Hemlock Trees. Great Smoky Mountains National Park Management Folio #7.
|
| 60 |
NPS gov.data (2020). Great Smoky Mountains National Park Emerald Ash Borer Sites. [online] Available at: https://catalog.data.gov/it/dataset/great-smoky-mountains-n… (Accessed 26 August 2020).
|
| 61 |
NPS. (2018b). Exploited Plant Monitoring. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/im/aphn/exploited-plants.htm (Accessed 25 September 2020).
|
| 62 |
NPS. (2020p). Lynn Camp Prong. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/nature/lynn-camp-prong.htm (Accessed 24 September 2020).
|
| 63 |
NPS. (2020q). Park Closes to Support Regional COVID-19 Prevention Efforts. [online] 24 March, National Park Service. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/news/park-closes-to-support-… (Accessed 16 November 2020).
|
| 64 |
Otak, Inc., RRC Associates, University of Montana (2024). 2023 Socioeconomic Research of Great Smoky Mountains National Park – Winter Season. National Park Service (Code: 2305296). Available at: https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2305296 (Accessed 5 January 2025).
|
| 65 |
PEER (2024). Public Employees for Environmental Research: National Park Ranger Ranks Shrink to Generational Low. Published 1 August 2024. [online] Available at: https://peer.org/national-park-ranger-ranks-shrink-to-gener… [Accessed 17 February 2025].
|
| 66 |
Pew. (2020). Senate Passes Historic Bill to Improve Protection of National Parks and Public Lands. [online] The Pew Charitable Trusts. Available at:https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles… (Accessed 24 September 2020).
|
| 67 |
Rosenblat, C. (2025). National parks brace for ‘a hold-your-breath year’ as the season heats up. CNN. Published online 16 April 2025. Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/16/travel/national-parks-vi…
|
| 68 |
SABR (2023). South Appalachian Biosphere Reserve: Story map. Edited by Elizabeth Halasz, published 8 May 2023. [online] Available at: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/0851ef4103c140dd8935aa… [Accessed 5 January 2025].
|
| 69 |
SELC (2020). Senate passes Great American Outdoors Act. [online] Southern Environmental Law Center. Available at: https://www.southernenvironment.org/news-and-press/news-fee… (Accessed 1 December 2020).
|
| 70 |
Smoky Mountain News. (2019). National parks battle invasion. [online] 23 December, Holly Kays. Available at: https://www.smokymountainnews.com/archives/item/28223-natio… (Accessed 25 September 2020).
|
| 71 |
State Party of the United States (2023). Periodic Reporting Cycle 3, Section II: Great Smoky Mountains National Park (United States of America) [online] Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/document/216426 [Accessed on 14 April 2025]
|
| 72 |
Sumpter, K. L., McAvoy, T. J., Brewster, C. C., Mayfield III, A. E., & Salom, S. M. (2018). Assessing an integrated biological and chemical control strategy for managing hemlock woolly adelgid in southern Appalachian forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 411, 12-19.
|
| 73 |
Taylor, D. (2016). The Fight Against Ginseng Poaching in the Great Smoky Mountains. 21 April, Smithsonian Mag. [online] Available at: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fight-against… (Accessed 25 September 2020).
|
| 74 |
Tremont (2025). Great Smoky Mountains Institute at Tremont / Mission & History. [online] Available at: https://gsmit.org/about/mission-and-history/ [Accessed 9 February 2025].
|
| 75 |
U.S. Congress (2020). H.R. 1957 - Great American Outdoors Act. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1957
|
| 76 |
UNEP-WCMC (2011). World Heritage Datasheet: Great Smoky Mountains National Park. [online] Available at: http://world-heritage-datasheets.unep-wcmc.org/datasheet/ou… [Accessed 17 February 2025].
|
| 77 |
WBIR. (2017). Ginseng poaching spikes in Smokies. [online Available at: https://www.wbir.com/article/news/local/ginseng-poaching-sp…. (Accessed 25 September 2020)
|
| 78 |
WBIR. (2020). Scientists study Smokies air quality during COVID-19 closure. [online] Available at: https://www.wbir.com/article/news/local/scientists-study-sm… (Accessed 24 September 2020).
|
| 79 |
World Heritage Committee (2002). Decision 26 COM 21B.27 Great Smoky Mountains National Park (United States of America). In: Report of decisions of the 26th session of the World Heritage Committee (Budapest, 2002). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/259/documents/ (Accessed 1 December 2020).
|
| 80 |
World Heritage Committee (2006). Decision 30 COM 7B.27 Great Smoky Mountains National Park (United States of America). In: Report of decisions of the 30th session of the World Heritage Committee (Vilnius, 2002). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/259/documents/ (Accessed 1 December 2020).
|
| 81 |
World Heritage Committee (2018). Decision : 42 COM 8E Adoption of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value- Great Smoky Mountains National Park (United States of America). In: Report of decisions of the 42nd session of the World Heritage Committee (Manama, 2018). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/259/documents/ (Accessed 1 December 2020).
|